[RobbyS]

Assuming you accept the validity of the Council of Nicaea, and the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, were not yet RCC accepted doctrines, your argument is invalid What was the Council of Nicaea ABOUT? The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption: where does the Council address these issues, have they even emerged? The purpose of the Council was to judge the validity of the doctrines of Arius by measuring it against past doctrine. Some people would say that they ruled wrongly: that Arius was closer to the Truth. He certainly makes a credible argument based on Scripture and the writings of earlier divines. Would you say that Peter and Paul taught definitively the Christological formula of the Council?

Regarding the antiquity of the Marian doctrines we must be cautious. White mentions J.N.D. Kelly, his Early Christian Doctines, I refer you to his chapter 18. I would accept that the cult of the Virgin was on the "fringe" of the Church in the late first and second centuries and overshadowed by the cult of the martyrs but is evidenced in certain aprocrypal words, especially the Proto gospel of James.By the 4th Century we have a very different picture although not a modern one. If you want to know my views on the development of doctrine,and the role of the papacy, I suggest you do read Newman

Regarding the opinions of "fathers" at variance with later Church teaching, the question I ask you is whether you are willing to let ANY authority decide between contending positions and THEN and ONLY THEN rule out other opinions, or do you insist on evaluating the fact situation and rendering a judgement yourself?

[OLD REGGIE]

Regarding the opinions of "fathers" at variance with later Church teaching, the question I ask you is whether you are willing to let ANY authority decide between contending positions and THEN and ONLY THEN rule out other opinions, or do you insist on evaluating the fact situation and rendering a judgement yourself?

The important point James White was making is that at time of the Council of Niceae the "Catholic Church" was not the "Catholic Church of today.

There was no "Pope".
There was no "Primacy" accorded to the Bishop of Rome.
There was no doctrine of Purgatory.
There was no doctrine of Immaculate Conception.
There was no doctrine of Bodily Assumption.
There was no doctrine of Purgatory.

The Church might well have been catholic. It certainly wasn't Roman Catholic.

The question I ask you is are you willing to accept new teachings based on some magic belief that these truths were "always known" but hidden or clearly understood? Be aware that all these new inventions carry the RCC further away from the truth.

Another question. Are you prepared to accept, without reservation, an infallible pronouncement of the Co-Mediator/Mediatrix? (It is coming one day.